This is the first paragraph of a commentary by Doug Schoen and Scott Rasmussen in today's Wall Street Journal:
It is simply wrong for commentators to continue to focus on President Barack Obama's high levels of popularity, and to conclude that these are indicative of high levels of public confidence in the work of his administration. Indeed, a detailed look at recent survey data shows that the opposite is most likely true. The American people are coming to express increasingly significant doubts about his initiatives, and most likely support a different agenda and different policies from those that the Obama administration has advanced.Scott is an extremely fair-minded guy and someone whom we have partnered with in the past. I don't know Doug Schoen, other than that he's Mark Penn's business partner. In any event, I think their lede is just wrong. Barack Obama's Gallup approval ratings, as of this afternoon, are 62 percent approve and 27 percent disapprove. Those are pretty good scores. The average of all Gallup approval ratings taken for all Presidents, going all the way back to 1937, is 54.9 percent approve and 35.2 percent disapprove; Obama is about 8 points ahead of those numbers on either side. He is notably more popular than an American president usually is, and it would therefore stand to reason that he has proportionately more power than average to advance his agenda. It is not wrong for commentators to notate this fact.
Now, what is true is that Obama's ratings have been declining some ... actually his approval ratings haven't been declining that much, but his disapproval scores have been increasing:
I segregate out Rasmussen's approval numbers from the other polls because they've been very different from the rest, generally showing disapproval scores about 10 points higher than the other agencies and approval scores a couple of points lower. Unlike with horse race polling, where all the pollsters are ultimately subject to a pop quiz in the form of an election, there is no obvious way to validate whether an approval poll is right or wrong. That makes it particularly important to pay attention to house effects. Rasmussen's approval ratings for Obama have been different from the other agencies, and/but, they've been consistently and predictably different. In any event, both the Rasmussen and non-Rasmussen data series ultimately show the same pattern: Obama's disapproval ratings have increased over time.
As we pointed out a couple of days ago, moreover, Obama's approval ratings are now fairly average for someone 50 days or so into his Presidency; this is the chart we produced at this time:
A well-rounded commentary on Barack Obama popularity would take note of this context. It would also disclaim, however, that Obama's first 50 days have been anything other than typical. A typical president, 50 days or so into his term, is choosing the drapes for the Lincoln Bedroom and picking out a puppy dog -- generally unobjectionable sorts of activities. Obama has chosen to put forward nearly the entirely of his agenda. One can make the case that Obama has attempted to push his agenda further in 50 days than most Presidents do in a year. Let's take that proposition somewhat literally: what do a President's approval ratings typically look like a year or so into his term?
In his first year in office, a President's approval ratings typically decline by about 3 points from the time of his inauguration, while his disapproval ratings typically climb by about 12 points. That is fairly close to the magnitude of change that Barack Obama's numbers have experienced. True, he's lost that ground in 50 days rather than 365. But here, I suppose, is the point:
This is all completely predictable. Barack Obama didn't get elected with 60 or 65 percent of the vote -- he got elected with about 53 percent of the vote. As the warm and fuzzy feelings surrounding his inauguration wane and are replaced by an actual attempt to put forward a actual political agenda, it is not surprising that his approval ratings gravitate toward that anchor established during the election.
Most Americans support most parts of Obama's agenda -- particularly the ideas of moving toward more universal health care, applying both carrots and sticks in the effort to reduce carbon emissions, making the tax code more progressive, permitting stem cell research, withdrawing troops from Iraq, and stimulating the economy. But not all Americans do, and as Obama attempts to actuate that agenda, it's not surprising that some of them are beginning to make those feelings known.

171 comments
Nate is to Rasmussen what Stewart is to Cramer.
Keep 'em real.
Here's what I don't get. If Obama's approval ratings go down, do these bozo's think they've won something by tearing him down?
Is this a game to them? Fuck them.
Nate,
Why aren't you following the polls for the upstate NY congressional race?
The Repugnicants hated him before the election. They hate him now. They will ALWAYS hate him. This is just what they do. As Obama attempts to move his agenda forward (ESPECIALLY Card Check), you can expect LOTS of whining, stomping, and diaper soiling from them. It's just what they do. In the parlance of the trade, I simply say; "Toughky Shitsky".
What took you guys so long to respond to this?
Well done.
Why drag the analysis back to the 1930s? Just to make Obama look better?
And why dismiss Rasmussen? Nate has praised his polls before, and they have tended to be very accurate on the question of popularity and in predicting election results. Perhaps they are overstated in some way - that is why you AVERAGE them in. Or, if you are going to drop Rasmussen, at least drop Obama's best poll too.
Sheer boosterism. In any case, Nate is ignoring the real point of the WSJ story, and that was the rather alarming unpopularity of many of Obama's positions. Deficits, taxes, spending and government bloat are not popular. Bush discovered this. So will Obama.
Nate, Scott Rasmussen mentioned you in his methodology of States.
I think he´s a friend of you.
You know, his approval ratings took a huge upward leap after his speech to Congress. Seems to me that, if the numbers get too low (whatever that means), all he needs to do is give another speech.
And don't the RepubliCAN'TS just HATE that!
Rasmussen is a great pollster, he is just using a methodology on his questions that makes him an outlier for this analysis. He is also a crazy evangelical, methinks.
Scott Rasmussen is a disingenuous push polling prick. I don't trust ANY poll he puts out that isn't conducted during an election year. As for the Wall Street Journal. LOL
So the rightwing media thought they'd figured out the perfect way to attack Obama: promote a Wall Street Journal survey of economists in which President Obama received a failing grade.
The usual suspects at Fox were all to eager to please their Republican masters, but even CNN and MSNBC joined in pimping the story.
The thing is, these weren't a group of randomly selected economists -- these are a group of conservatives, the overwhelming majority of whom backed John McCain's economic policies in the presidential campaign. Moreover, they aren't too bright: half of them thought the recession ended seven months ago!
Check out these numbers from the WSJ archives of previous surveys:
* February 2008: 76% of the economists surveyed by the WSJ said they supported either McCain or Romney on economic policy over Obama or Clinton
* May 2008: 75% of these economists said they preferred McCain's fiscal policy to Obama's
* August 2008: 49% said the recession had already ended, and 50% believed the economy would be the same or better by election day.
* September 2008: 66% said they opposed any new stimulus plan
* December 2008: the economists predicted the unemployment rate would peak at 8.4%. It's already at 8.1% and rising.
In short, this was a survey of the same bloody idiots who got us into the mess President Obama is now trying to extract us from.
Thank god they don't approve of the job he's doing! Their disapproval is a badge of freaking honor!
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2009/3/13/10502/0735/995/707848
On the markets, I'm amused at the financial news anchors and pundits. As of typing this, they're all giddy at the Dow and Nasdaq gaining 4 consecutive days. I mean, thay all have big grins on their faces.
Darío said...
Nate, Scott Rasmussen mentioned you in his methodology of States.
I think he´s a friend of you."
That may be true Dario. But, if Rasmussen and those hiring him and using his polling are trying to create a narrative to diminish this administrations effectiveness by shaping the public's perception in a negative way towards the administration and possibly contrary to the way Nate feels this country should be going to, Nate's silence in these matters would be much more harmful. Nate should use this sites platform to counter the analysis if one exists.
The GOP will use Rasmussen over and over and over with questions coming from different angles until they achieve results to support the claims they are trying to sell to the public.
At least that's the way I see it.
Hey Nate,
Does Obama or someone in his administration have some pictures of you or something. You and this site have become brain dead cheerleaders for every move this guy makes. Maybe I should go watch msnbc instead of reading 538.
Will I ever see the comment "I think Mr. Obama might have got this one wrong"
I'll be waiting!
BLADE
Rasmussen's likely voter scheme benefits republicans. Just check out the differences in congressional approval between Rasmussen and R2K:
http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/mood_of_america/congressional_favorablility_ratings/congressional_favorability_ratings
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2009/3/12/22416/9004/955/707904
Now, I am not sure why these questions require a likely voter scheme, but for me, it reinforces the belief that a higher voter turnout is good for Democrats. It seems that apolitical people improve the ratings of democratic politicians.
And by the way, why does a pollster need to write an opinion piece? There is too much wanting to create a narrative in there for me.
You know, I've come to this site a few times since you wrote your piece on experts--where you urged us to let the experts figure it out, then to remove anyone who stood in the way of that expert consensus--and I find I just can't read you anymore.
I can't get that paragraph out of my mind and it is ultimately horrifying in terms of what it reveals about you. Until you somehow walk that back I can't in good conscience read 538 anymore.
Just in...
Television ratings for this week:
The Daily Show with Jon Stewart UP 20%
CNBC's Mad Money with Jim Cramer DOWN 25%
Lesson learned: Don't fuck with Jon Stewart and the Daily Show. Maybe Colbert, but he's a conservative.
White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs on Jon Stewart's interview: "I enjoyed it thoroughly"
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2009/3/13/14352/0889/692/708159
Until yesterday, I'd not been to Rasmussen's site since the election. What I find amusing (as I defended his Presidential approval tracking methodology and reporting during the last Administration) is that he's now emphasizing the difference between his "Strongly" categories as opposed to the difference between the overall totals. When did that start?
@pinchoff (nice nick! :) )
Will I ever see the comment "I think Mr. Obama might have got this one wrong"
I'll be waiting!
No need to wait. If you want to see a very close paraphrasing of that comment (I'm not sure this site has ever referred to him as "Mr. Obama"?) you can find multiple examples in there.
PG-
Now we know why Cramer went on TDS. His bosses sued for peace in the Battle of Basic Cable Stars.
The real story here is the comparison with Reagan; it's the only other example where there has been this sharp a break with the past in terms of policy. And Obama's actually slightly ahead despite the much more rancid and febrile condition of the current Republican Party compared to 1981 Democrats.
"applying both carrots and sticks in the effort to reduce carbon emissions"
The analogy of the carrot and stick does not mean what you think it means, I believe you may have confused it somehow with Teddy Roosevelt's 'big stick'.
The donkey is led by a carrot attached to a stick, so that he will continue to walk forward. The promise of the carrot is illuso...Oh. I see.
Whatever Ras's methodology, Nate's point about how much Obama has done is a significant one. There's no real comparison to any other administration.
I guess the stock-market-as-approval-meter crowd are waiting for next week to see if they can bring back their argument.
The donkey is led by a carrot attached to a stick, so that he will continue to walk forward. The promise of the carrot is illuso...Oh. I see.
No. Just no. You're conflating "carrot and stick" with "carrot on a stick". When training mules, you may alternately drive it forward with a switch or entice it forward with a carrot.
http://www.wsu.edu/~brians/errors/carrot.html
loner said...
Until yesterday, I'd not been to Rasmussen's site since the election. What I find amusing (as I defended his Presidential approval tracking methodology and reporting during the last Administration) is that he's now emphasizing the difference between his "Strongly" categories as opposed to the difference between the overall totals. When did that start?
When the FReeptards began shitting on him for consistently showing Obama ahead of McCrypt Keeper-Mooseburger in the run-up to November 4.
Now with with a popular president with rock solid favorables, thanks to Rasmussen, the FReeptards have something to cherry pick from. Not to mention his push polls and economic outliers.
Even I don't "Strongly Approve" the job President Obama is doing. And given the unprecedented shit he has to put up with, I'd rate Obama around 75% at this point. I can't believe some of the idiots out there who are saying he's doing too much, which basically translates into that he's working too hard.
"A big enough carrot makes a pretty good stick."--Taft Chatham
PorridgeGun—
Thanks.
If Rasmussen is involved, it is not a "survey" or "poll" in the traditional meanings of those words.
I think it would be instructive to look more closely at Rasmussen's polling methods, instead of simply looking at the results. True the results are clear outliers and clearly have a built in bias, but why? And no, I am not asking about Rasmussen's motivations, rather I am asking what is it about his methods that lead to the observed result?
I have not seen the questions that he uses in his polling, so I have no insight whatsoever as to how those questions stack up with the questions that other polling services use. I have noticed commentators suggesting that Rasmussen uses push polls, but I haven't seen the evidence.
One thing that sets Rasmussen apart, is the insistence on filtering his results through a "likely voter" model. To me, this makes very little sense 6 weeks into a 4 year term. Most other polling agencies report the preferences of "all voters", which would seem to be more appropriate at this time.
This process used by Rasmussen to filter the data is rather suspect for two reasons: 1) There is no evidence that he has updated his "likely voter" model since the election, during which it was clear that his model failed to accurately predict voter turnout among Obama supporters. 2) His model explicitly over counts republicans. Like every other polling agency, Rasmussen assigns weights to their respondents depending on party affiliation. However, Rasmussen explicitly states that republicans are more reliable voters, so therefore he adds more weight to republican responders above what would be predicted by simply gauging the percentage of republicans in the country.
These filters are presumably fairly static, and have the effect of simply shifting the underlying data (to the disservice of Obama). Hence, Rasmussen's results follow the same general trend as everyone else, but consistently portray a much more pessimistic picture.
From my perspective, the filtering carried out by Rasmussen is not only wrong headed, but it is also fairly unethical. It is effectively silencing a fairly substantial proportion of the population. His raw data likely demonstrates a much higher level of support for the president, but because of his bias, he has decided that the opinions of many respondents do not count.
Saint Dude,
That's what Nate means by "house effects."
Saint Dude...
A pollster attempts to find the public's views on something. Rasmussen starts out with what he'd like public opinion to be, then designs "polls" to give him what he wants.
It would be interesting to look at Obama's approval ratings via a reverse Rasmussen filter. After all, democrats are currently much more enthusiastic than their republican counterparts.
Using the reverse filter: Obama would have a 70:15 favorable:unfavorable rating. Not too shabby!
With four up days on Wall Street and a huge point jump for the whole week, what'd ya wanna bet those approval ratings start making a turn the other direction.
Approval ratings are as fickle as the market. They're both Lemming-esk, if you ask me.
I have one quibble with St. Dude's analysis, and this is about the likely voter filter. If you don't vote, you've made the decision not to influence political events. Therefore, why should likely non-voters ever be included in surveys? They have chosen to make themselves irrelevant, and as far as politicians are concerned, they are.
About Nate's article: Obama's not "notably more popular than an American president usually is." Gallup indicates that he's bog-standard for a President seven weeks in, and declining faster than average. Expect this trend to continue- people have little patience with politicians when they're hurting, and the Democrats have complete control of the electoral branches and are thus the only ones who can be blamed from here on out.
He spent a lot of political capital for the stimulus package. Judging from the emphasis he's been placing on deficit reduction in his subsequent budget, he no longer holds with its Keynesian intellectual justification, if he ever did. It was intended to be something quick, so he could say "I did this!" and to allow Pelosi and Reid to reward supporters with pork. The comments from the Chinese have made it clear that the stimulus won't be followed up anyway- they are unlikely to extend our line of credit that much further.
That leaves the rest of his plans, which are still vague and unformed because he doesn't seem to have put much thought into priorities or how to actually govern instead of running against Hillary or McCain or Rush or Rick Santelli or, hell, anyone. He's got the job- and now he realizes he should have spent time, somewhere along the line, learning to DO something rather than continuously seeking the next promotion.
How much does Obama’s approval rating even matter right now? Midterms are a long way off and Obama wasn’t making any headway with the Republicans in Congress with a sky-high approval rating.
Obama could always adopt the former President’s "Who Gives A Shit What You Think" strategy:
BRET BAIER: Despite our repeated asking, you have never really wanted to talk about polls when you've made decisions throughout this presidency.
PRESIDENT GEORGE BUSH: 'Cause I never have used a poll to make a decision.
BRET BAIER: When you're leaving now, your approval rating is hovering around 30 percent or a little below. It's been below 40 percent for 27 straight months. And that matches Harry Truman's string of sub-40--
PRESIDENT GEORGE BUSH: Yeah.
BRET BAIER: percent approval ratings. And you'll pass him this month unless there's a big surge that we don't know about.
PRESIDENT GEORGE BUSH: I don't care.
(from a 12/17/08 interview on Fox News)
@RufusRules
I don't entirely believe him that he doesn't care. What's he suppose to say? "Yeah, I'm an even bigger flop than my one-termer Dad"?
> Judging from the emphasis he's been placing on deficit reduction in his subsequent budget, he no longer holds with its Keynesian intellectual justification.
Or maybe he's just applying appropriate policy at appropriate times, acknowledging that it isn't a one-size-fits-all world?
This may be an odd question Nate, but it appears as though you fit the data with a quadratic (or some other low degree polynomial). I'm not sure this makes methodological sense as it forces the resulting predicted approval ratings into a specific shape where one has no theoretical reason to exist. I would have suggested using a locally-weighted moving average model, which allows short term rises and falls to show through.
Just a suggestion.
I think a stronger argument is that Obama's ratings fall within the range of recent presidents, but the long term relevance (or even short term) of such results is unclear, so why discuss it?
Bruce
I agree.
It seems to me that presidential approval polls are being taken with absurd frequency. How, for instance, can one even know what the effects of Obama's policies are at this point?
He's already won the popularity contest, and he'll be in office for a while. Republicans weren't psychics for the last eight horror-filled years, and they can't start being psychics now.
To paraphrase Ronald Dumsfeld, "You go into a new term with the president you've got, not the one you wish you had."
Warning: tl;dr.
So, my view on this:
First of all, I think that the wisdom of using LV models this far from a federal-level election for 99% of things (NY-20 notwithstanding) is heinously dumb. We just voted four months ago, and will not go to the polls to elect congressmen for another twenty months and to elect our President for another 44 months. Predicting who and who isn't likely to vote this far out is meaningless - after all, in March 2005, could we have predicted who was going to be likely to vote in November 2008?
On the other hand...at least Ras is consistent. As for narrative-telling, I've seen quite a few other pollsters editorialize. Other than Zogby, who I'm convinced got his start writing for Murdoch's Daily Toliet Paper (I mean the Post, not the Journal; at least the latter PRETENDS to be reputable and hinged sometimes).
And, at the risk of sounding like a Freeper...the truth is probably somewhere in-between Ras and the rest, though probably closer to the rest.
One thing I'm wondering is, though...perhaps it's the way that the answers are given? Are Rasmussen's answers on a continuum of - say - 0 to 10? Where 0 is strongly disapprove and 10 is strongly approve?
And are answers less than 5 taken as disapproves, answers more than 5 approves, and 5's neutral? As noted, it's not so much that Obama's positives are much lower from Rasmussen - it's that his negatives are so much higher. And there are seemingly VERY few people that are undecided.
But it could be just that soft supporters are counted as more decisive than they actually are.
The Rasmussen model must be something like: If someone does not have a strong preference, then they are not likely to be counted as a "likely voter". Unless of course if they are republican.
Obama has done more in the first 2 months than most Presidents do in the first year. Whether you agree with them or not. I would think his poll numbers would be more volatile, because people already have something to base their yay or nay on, rather than a pretty inaguration. Yet his numbers haven't gone drastically gone down at all.
somethingelse said...
The donkey is led by a carrot attached to a stick, so that he will continue to walk forward.
Although many may argue with the credibility of Wikipedia, here is the opening paragraph on it's article on 'carrot and stick':
Carrot and stick (also "carrot or stick") is an idiom that refers to a policy of offering a combination of rewards and punishment to induce behavior. It may derive from methods used for training mules and other animals by drawing them forward with rewards (the "carrot") and driving them forward with punishment (the "stick").
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carrot_and_stick
In other words, what Mason stated (above). And as such, Nate's use of the term is/was correct.
I really don't understand the obsession with polls for popularity this early in a term. It's understandable that Nate's interested, a statistician can't live without data.
But I ask again: Obama has a mandate. He has about two years to actually do something before he has to start worrying about getting elected again. Why are popularity polls that important?
Interestingly there seems to be a significant divergence in his popularity regionally. From the dkos/R2000 poll
Here are Obama's net favorability ratings on
1/08/09, 1/22/09, and 3/12/09
Northeast +55,+80,+77
South +18,+27,-6
Midwest +40,+64,+52
West +47,+67,+57
Overall +38,+57,+41
As you can see he moved upwards in all regions after inauguration, he then lost some but not all of those gains in the midwest and west but after a brief sag managed to hold almost all of those gains in the northeast (where he is now at 77/10). In the south however he has lost 33 points since the inauguration. That's where the bulk of his support has been lost from.
Here is the same information in graphical form.
Typo.... 87/10 not 77/10 in the northeast..
>>> Lesson learned: Don't fuck with Jon Stewart and the Daily Show. Maybe Colbert, but he's a conservative.
You do realise that Colbert's act is a parody of right-wing pundits like O'Reilly?
If anything, Colbert's act and commentry is a harsher indictment of right-wing nuttery.
>>> I really don't understand the obsession with polls for popularity this early in a term.
Politicians in Congress, for one, are more likely to side with a popular president than an unpopular one. In other words, a president's ability to push through his agenda is enhanced by high ratings.
That said, administrations ought not live by daily tracking-polls and such. After all, you're elected to get stuff done rather than winning popularity contests for four years.
Besides, often you have to sacrifice short-term popularity to be popular in a number of years.
All that being said, the media sure does overemphasize horse-race coverage. It's just more fun and easier to do than substantive coverage, let alone investigative journalism.
Nate - Great job here. But I fear that you are still giving Rasmussen too much credit. Have a look at the smackdown Ygelesias has given him. Throughout the election last year and into Obama's 1st 3 months, he has run intentionally misleading polling for the Repubs all tilted HEAVILY conservative.
And as he did in co-authoring this article in the WSJ, he massaged the findings to show that Obama is falling, which is just not true as you show here.
One last thing: You should also note that Rasmussen polls add approve + disapprove from varying degrees of A/B to equal 99%. So there is no room for UNSURE in their polling. This is why their Disapproves are so much higher than other natl polls.
It is simply wrong for commentators to continue to focus on President Barack Obama's high levels of popularity, and to conclude that these are indicative of high levels of public confidence in the work of his administration.
He's very popular, but people have no confidence in his administration? Does this make sense to anyone else? Anyone?
But I ask again: Obama has a mandate. He has about two years to actually do something before he has to start worrying about getting elected again. Why are popularity polls that important?
To stiffen the spines of cowardly Democrats in Congress who'll work for the Obama agenda only so long as it's politically popular and who will hide under their desks from Republican bullying otherwise.
I was just polled! It had all the hallmarks of a Rasmussen poll:
1) It was a robo poll (not a live person)
2) It was clearly a pretty professional organization as it was comprehensive and good
3) It was clearly skewed way right on the political questions - whoever wrote it wants EFCA to fail, I, of course, still answered the clearly skewed questions like a good dem, but...
Northeast +55,+80,+77
South +18,+27,-6
Midwest +40,+64,+52
West +47,+67,+57
Overall +38,+57,+41
So in the areas where he was the voters choice and that elected him, he is actually slightly more popular now than he was in Jan.
He is implementing the policies that he campaigned on but the people who voted for him then are now against those policies? being a ignorant pundit is sure hard work ain't it
Well, there is an argument that he is driving a bit too hard on some policies during a recession - there are policies that create jobs and help markets and those that do not (he has both) - and I would like him to see back off the cap and trade talk until the economy turns.
Personally, I don't think he's going far enough.
Bush's policies destroyed the USA. To restore it, every one of Bush's reforms have to be undone. The sooner we begin, the sooner we will be back where we want to be.
If that wasn't a hackjob of an article I don't know what is. The WSJ can eat a toasted dick
Rasmussen provided among the highest approval ratings for Bush. He is now providing among the lowest for Obama. This isn't how "house effect" is supposed to work is it? Seems more likely to be partisan axe grinding.
Rasmussen is a complete hack, he is a good pollster so his numbers have to be intentionaly skewed.
Fred-
Those that argue that Obama should do nothing but concentrate on the gyrations of wall street are simply spouting talking points from the opposition.
They would prefer that Obama accomplish nothing at all. They do not want to see any aspect of Obama's progressive agenda implemented, not now, not next year, not ever. Insisting that the president focus on a single issue and ignore the rest of his agenda is simply another form of filibuster.
As for cap and trade: You should not worry about it being implemented in the middle of this recession. Even if the issue is moved forward, it will not likely be fully implemented for several years. The recession should be over by then.
I also think it is erroneous to portray cap and trade as a job killer. Sure it will create a tax for certain activities. But it will also create a new market that will benefit many existing businesses, as well as those developing new cleaner and more energy efficient technologies.
Nonetheless, cap and trade is a net tax and would represent a drain on the overall economy, IF the revenue from that tax were not pumped back into the economy. However, Obama is proposing to use the revenue generated from cap and trade to support the development of new energy technologies and to subsidize the retrofitting of residences and businesses with energy saving materials and equipment.
The money that is pumped back into the economy will support whole new industries, and create a large number of new jobs.
Long term - consumers will pay more per kilowatt, but if they take advantage of subsidies and increase their energy efficiency, they will be unlikely to pay larger energy bills. Overall the country will be leaner and meaner. We will be able to produce more with less energy, creating an environment for sustainable long term growth.
Regardless of Rasmussen's methods, the underlying trend is clear. Obama's negatives have risen rapidly and his positives have fallen slightly in all polls, and it's important to understand why.
Two reasons come to mind:
1) His lofty and amorphous campaign promises have become concrete actions and thus more offensive/less attractive to some. This was inevitable.
2) The GOP has taken a hard, unified, and very loud stand against him at every opportunity. This is consistent with a strategy which seeks to a) bring Obama's poll numbers down now, rather than suffer thru a long period of his popularity and success, b) drag the Democrats into food fights, which almost always benefit the minority candidate/party, c) shore up the GOP base - witness the South numbers cited by Scott.
Republicans have lived by the GOPAC memo (http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article4443.htm) ever since it was written. They've had years of success living by the Newt-onian tenet of define (trash) your opponent before he can define himself. They are effectively carrying out that strategy today, even from a position of otherwise significant weakness.
Goopers (including stealth goopers like Gerson) are arguing that Obama should just concentrate on the economic stimulus and not things like health care.....This argument is absurd. If the govt. is going to spend money on stimulus- then they should spend it on the priorities for which Obama was elected- like health care...
The goopers are scared poopless that Obama will actually DO something about health care and that it will become another "third rail" that the goopers can only touch by giving their lives for their party.
The whole thing is interconnected.
It would be nice if we lived in an ideal world, where every issue was a free-standing thing unto itself. Then, we could tackle everything one at a time, and the effects of each issue wouldn't spill over into anything else.
Sadly, that is not the real world. Reality is a bit messier-one of the things preventing consumers from buying things is the fear of losing their job and therefore their health insurance, since the vast majority of health insurance in the US is offered through the employer. The resulting lack of business causes employers to look for what they can jettison to stay afloat-and their largest expense is health insurance plans for their employees.
The military campaigns in Iraq and Afghanistan are suffering from a lack of people that want to enlist these days. A draft would not bode well for the Administration-nothing says 'regime change' like a group of pissed off soccer moms from suburbia screaming at their Congressmen about how if they want to take their son, they'll have to do it over said soccer mom's dead body. There are alot of GLBTs that want to join the military- many who possess special skills, like being able to speak Arabic and Paştun fluently. DADT prevents them from joining, or if they do join, they get kicked out. To get your recruitment totals up to the needed levels while avoiding a draft, you have to lift DADT-especially if you decide you give in to the urge to surge.
Both our military and business operations require energy to run-got to power the tanks somehow, and business without the means to ship goods where they need to go will be very slow indeed. Gas prices can be easily manipulated those fickle souls in Saudi Arabia, whose opinions of us seem to change like the desert winds themselves. Shale oil is very difficult to extract and refine into a usable product-as are the Tar Sands of Alberta. Coal is abundant, but it creates some seriously nasty side effects. We have access to renewable energy sources that can, if nothing else, supplement our energy supply to allow us to withstand oil price shocks should the Saudis ever decide that they want to fuck with our heads again-like they do every six months or so. We have startups and investors ready to go-Tesla motors and Zen Motors already produce electric cars, there are a number of companies that want to build solar cell arrays in the desert, T Boone Pickens is ready and waiting to set up windmills from Texas to Manitoba, tidal energy is already being harvested in New England, geothermal could easily be established in the more volcanic parts of the US. By pursuing these renewables, we are doing right by the environment, and also by our troops and businesses.
We have a glut of kids in foster homes and awaiting adoption. There aren't that many parents these days that want to take on an extra burden during the financial crisis. Forcing mothers to bring children into a world when nobody can afford to support them is inhumane, as is denying GLBT parents the right to adopt and lighten the load on an already overburdened CPS system. So is denying access to welfare for the low-income families that do take responsibility for their kids instead of abandoning them.
The idea that President Obama has to tackle every issue one at a time does injustice to the intricacies of the real world. No issue exists in a vacuum, unaffected by any other issue. If it seems like he's doing alot at once, he is: because he has to. That's reality, folks.
If it all seems so overwhelming, give it some time before you panic. It's only been 50 days-7 weeks, folks. Given that the aggregated data for the market is collected in three month periods, you won't see the effects of all these changes until about 3 months or so after they take effect-which means, come April 20 (420?), we will be seeing the effects of Obama's first day in office. It's too early to jump his shit just yet. We,re still looking at economic data for the period Bush was in office.
Does it seem risky and a little scary? You bet it does, the same way brain surgery scares the shit out of anyone who has to undergo it. Faced with certain death from a brain tumor or the possibility of survival from letting a surgeon cut that tumor out of your head, I would suggest that we should face the fear and move through it rather than letting panic prevent us from seeking that possibility of success and becoming trapped in certain failure.
The surgeon's knife may seem crude-but ask any cancer survivor, and they'll sing you a little song called, "God Save the Surgeon"
phil—
They are effectively carrying out that strategy today, even from a position of otherwise significant weakness.
My best guess is that they've done more damage to themselves than to Democrats in general and Obama in particular thus far so "effective" isn't the word I'd use. For some reason, "incompetent" and "pathetic" come to mind.
Your first reason always applies and, depending on how much of the electorate voted for the public official in question (as opposed to voting against his or her opponent,) can go either way. My best guess is that in this case it accounts for almost all the polling (questionable as it is) trend you note.
Brad said...
Rasmussen is a complete hack, he is a good pollster so his numbers have to be intentionaly skewed.
March 14, 2009 1:17 PM
**********
@Brad,
Ras DOAS IT INTENTIONALLY.
So He is NOT a good pollster.
He cooks numbers,I noticed it since the 2008 campaign begun.
Anyway I agree with this:
Statler N Waldorf said...
Personally, I don't think he's going far enough.
Bush's policies destroyed the USA. To restore it, every one of Bush's reforms have to be undone. The sooner we begin, the sooner we will be back where we want to be.
March 14, 2009 12:05 PM
*********
and this:
Boing said...
I really don't understand the obsession with polls for popularity this early in a term. It's understandable that Nate's interested, a statistician can't live without data.
But I ask again: Obama has a mandate. He has about two years to actually do something before he has to start worrying about getting elected again. Why are popularity polls that important?
March 14, 2009 2:56 AM
********
That's all.
Enjoy your Sunday.
bye.
I am attempting to differentiate Ras from Zogby. Ras is a good pollster who could get the right numbers if he wanted, but intentionally skews them. Zogby is a bad pollster who couldn't get the right number to begin with so his possible skewing is not due to bias, but stupicity.
fred said...
Well, there is an argument that he is driving a bit too hard on some policies during a recession - there are policies that create jobs and help markets and those that do not (he has both)
Besides cap and trade, start naming. And since you stated 'policies' in the plural, better name more than one, as one is NOT plural.
Rasmussen's focus on likely voters for political favorability polling makes perfect sense. A presidential approval poll is only relevant for its effect on the next election cycle and the only folks relevant in the next election cycle are voters.
Rasmussen updates his likely voter profile regularly and his results are arguably the best in the business.
I do not see anything shocking in the Rasmussen results. Obama is proposing the most radical expansion of government since LBJ/Nixon and thus managed to snap the GOP voters out of their post defeat funk in short order. This is unsurprising.
The real question is whether Obama will lose ground among the swing voters as they begin to tune into what Obama is proposing. Is Obama a personally popular man proposing changes that will be unpopular with what has been a center right electorate for the past generation or has there been a true realignment to the left? Time will tell.
I think we've just had a visit from a "concern" troll...
Brad...
I don't know whether it was intentional, but I love your word "stupicity"--duplicity amongst the not-very-bright.
:)
Ahh Mike, I have listed them on earlier threads:
MISTAKES:
Cap and trade during a recession
Threatening to take the home mortgage deduction from anyone during a housing crisis
threatening to raise taxes in two years during a recession - even if you plan to
talking up the problem of the economy, instead of talking it down (he same to have changed this finally)
talking an insanely stupid reform bill ( a job killer) during a recession
There are more, but I am on my second bloody mary...
Bart DePalma-
As many have already mentioned, Rasmussen is a very competent pollster whose results are often fairly precise. They just aren't very accurate. There is little reason to believe his "likely voter" model is anything more than a partisan pipe dream. He was not accurate in his polling running up to the last election, and there is no evidence that he has corrected the problem. Even with objective evidence to the contrary, he continues to act as though Obama supporters are unlikely to go to the polls.
Rasmussen's results do not reflect the true composition of the American electorate. They are not even close to reflecting the composition of the American populace. Thus they are a poor estimate of Obama's popularity, or the popularity of his proposals. After all a president is the leader of the American people, not just the 25% or so of the population that shows up to vote him into office.
If you think that a president only has to answer to the voters, then he would owe absolutely nothing to those that vote against him. This may have been the logic of the last administration, but luckily for you, I don't think this administration views it quite this way.
Oh, and I agree with most of the policies (except for cap and trade and patent reform), Obama just needs to be more prudent with the timing.
Pollster.com has also gone after the WSJ article HERE.
I agree with Statler that there are too many things that need doing quickly for Obama to just focus on the economy.
In the case of the automotive industry, for example the worst possible move would be to enable the carmakers to keep doing what they've been doing all along. Getting back to business as usual seems not only impossible but wrong. In my opinion this crisis offers an opportunity to pivot toward a zero carbon (or at least 100 mpg) solution.
We saw what happened when we let auto execs (and, to an extent, unions) determine what gets made and how it effects the environment. We're all breathing auto exhaust and subsidizing oil wars, so to say that GM, for instance, is a private enterprise in the same way a mom and pop hardware store is is absurd.
Does that mean the government should run the auto industry? Certainly not, but it can incentivize innovation, set environmentally responsible goals, and help lay the groundwork for a new technological paradigm. Compared to what's come before it's overregulation, but it's the antidote not the ultimate solution.
Few would argue with this if we were in a world war, or if a giant asteroid were hurtling towards earth, but I would argue that we're in a race against time which we're losing badly, and that there are plausible outcomes that, should they happen, will make us wish we'd been hit by an asteroid.
OK, I'm a green nut. No environment, no economy...
Incidentally, a better health care system should save money, not cost more, so what's the point of waiting to fix it?
There was an ice age 150,000 years, the climate is always changing and the evolutionary system is designed for it, relax.
The auto industry is something he should deal with - but GM and Chrysler need to go bankrupt.
Interesting article of the day, The Economist calls for legalization of drugs.
http://www.economist.com/displayStory.cfm?story_id=13237193&source=most_commented
'
Hu Chi,
I agree.
And while some may say that fluctuations exist in terms of global climate, these fluctuations are kind of like heartbeats. Under normal conditions, they maintain a certain rhythm, and the extremes oscillate within a certain range. And, like a heartbeat, as long as these patterns are maintained, you're going to be just fine.
Also like a heartbeat, when the rythm is off to a significant degree, and the limits are exceeded, you,re in serious trouble. Right now, the planet's climate is experiencing a heart attack of sorts. Much as a heart attack in the human body can be produced by human agency-say you consumed too much of a given stimulant, this planetary heart attack is being induced by carbon emissions from manmade sources. The planetary fluctuations are oscillating out of frame, out of pattern, out of rhythm-and we could very well die as a result.
We must therefore treat it with the gravity of a heart attack, and not simply think to ourselves that because we have become excited int he past that a wildly irregular heartbeat with pains moving throughout the body in ways characteristic of a heart attack should simply be laughed off.
The entire earth is a body, and each of us is a cell of that body. Should the body itself die, we will all die with it. Whatever euphoria we may be getting from our stimulant-in this case, petroleum-if it endangers the health of the planet and therefore us, it is better to stop using that stimulant in the interests of staying alive than to glut ourselves on a temporary and unneeded rush leading to overdose.
Withdrawal 's gonna be a bitch. It sure does beat the alternative, though.
Personally, I think we should subsidize Tesla and Zen Motors and not GM, Chrysler or Ford. While Detroit is still insisting that they need more time for R&D, Tesla and Zen are producing all electric vehicles right now. Why should we throw money down a hole by spending it on companies that drag their feet when told they have to produce green cars when we can invest in companies that have already got their green cars ont he road?
The people on the boards of directors of the Big Three have refused to produce the cars people want to buy. The reason why they are failing and begging for gov't handouts is because nobody will buy what they make. If you believe int he free market at all, these businesses should fail, because they refuse to do what the market demands. People want electric cars. The Prius is making a profit, the Hummer isn't.
To me, the choice seems clear-Tesla and Zen are making what the consumer wants to buy-clean energy vehicles, and they're American companies. Why should we subsidize GM, who refuses to produce anything that can compete with the Prius? That's a losing investment.
Sorry. I teach science. There's absolutely no guarantee that the set point for global climate has to be in a range that humans can tolerate. There'll always be an environment, but we don't have to be part of it.
Greenland ice core samples show that average temperature can fluctuate by more than thirty degrees over a mere five year period. Imagine that one summer the average is 70 F, and five years later it's 40 F. Plants can't handle that. People might survive, but civilization wouldn't.
We have an obligation not to dump 65 million year-old crap into the atmosphere and the ocean. And don't get me started on ocean acidification. Once calcium carbonate shells can't form, the organisms you're left with are ones you don't want to know about.
I admit the possibility of climate stabilization within tolerable ranges, but to assume that what we're doing is OK because the system takes care of itself strikes me as wishful thinking.
As to GM and Chrysler, bankruptcy of some sort may be the right thing. My comments were more to do with an ethical green vision and the government's role in promoting it.
Anybody that wants to invest in two car companies that are making electric cars as we speak and not dragging their asses, here are links to Zenn Motor Company and Tesla Motors.
Myself, I don't have a car-college and political donations have sucked away all my ca$h. When I can afford a vehicle, I intend to buy either a Tesla or a Zenn, and nothing else-it's possible to drive responsibly and have fun at the same time.
Saint Dude said...
As many have already mentioned, Rasmussen is a very competent pollster whose results are often fairly precise. They just aren't very accurate. There is little reason to believe his "likely voter" model is anything more than a partisan pipe dream. He was not accurate in his polling running up to the last election, and there is no evidence that he has corrected the problem.
Huh?
Rasmussen has pegged the presidential election results nearly exactly for the past two cycles.
This Elephant did not find Rasmussen's Dem +7 advantage among likely voters to be a "partisan pipe dream." Rasmussen's current data continue to show the GOP brand in the crapper even though Obama is sliding somewhat.
Finally, Rasmussen correctly predicted that the GOP rather than Obama voters would be staying home during 2008.
Poor Nate is reduced to dissecting numbers and even throwing out Rasmussen’s numbers (despite the fact that he was consistently the most accurate pollster of the last several cycles) in order to continue to breathe life into the meme that Obama stands astride public opinion like a new colossus.
One cannot deny that Obama commands attention and I suspect the public (which has never seen his likes before) does not quite know how to treat him and reacts viscerally to his handsome countenance and confident air. No doubt Obama has a high “Q” score and he could sell soap as well as stimuless, the first rule of sales being that the salesman be “cute”.
My suspicion is that Obama is declining in popularity. He could not possibly be more adored by Liberals and Democrats than he was when he was inaugurated. I will assume for purposes of argument their constancy, noting that biases the results against my thesis. I can sacrifice those segments because it cannot be gainsaid that Obama has lost support on the right, from the budget hawks and those who dislike the traditional liberal agenda of gays, abortion and pacifism, but were willing to give Obama the benefit of the doubt of centrist leanings because they desperately wanted to believe that he would restore the economy. These are middle income Republicans and independents. Some of this number will have soured on Obama and their demurral over him and his policies should be reflected in a decline in Obama’s poll numbers.
At this point, I think that the decline has been modest, a peeling off of a small layer of those folks who suspended judgment on the social issues but who being relatively media savvy have gotten the word that Obama fully intends to govern from the left and deficit spend like no one else in the history of the world.
Obama’s plans have received mixed reviews with the general sense that they are risky and unproven, and perhaps not calculated to achieve the desired results. More trillions may be needed. Meanwhile he has done little to signal to the business community that he believes them to be part of the solution as opposed to the problem. The cloudy tax picture has the moneyed interests sitting on the sidelines as well.
What Obama offers is risky and untested. It may even work in theory, but without confidence it will fail.
As noted above his policies and attitude make it fairly certain that the private sector will be a cautious entrant into recovery activity. Most believe that government cannot fill the void and if it tries to it will debase the currency causing a devaluation of assets and a spike in interest rates that will stall recovery until such time as tax rates are cut and spending is reigned in.
If economic trends continue downward, more and more citizens will be lead to examine what it is that the Obama economy is all about. When they do expect further decline in Obama poll numbers.
(You can now follow me on Twitter: PeteKent01 – where Friday in a sweet tweet I scooped this article!)
fred said...
MISTAKES:
Cap and trade during a recession
Idiot - do you know how long it will take to put a cap and trade mechanism in place?
First, it has to be passed. Let's say it passes by the end of May - VERY wishful thinking.
Then some regulatory agency has to come up with proposed rules. Six months is a VERY fast track for that. We're at the end of November by then.
Publish and public comment on the rules - Thirty days minimum, but since they are published during the 'holiday season' and end of year, it would be at least sixty days for comment. Now we're at the end of January, 2010.
IF the proposed rules are adopted with no changes (Highly, HIGHLY unlikely), they would go into effect then. And let's not forget that there almost certainly will be law suits to block it. Let's PRETEND that there are none, though.
But, a market has to be put in place, and there has to be time for it to be set up. Six months would be putting it on a fast track, as some other agency (revamped SEC?) would most likely be put in charge of that market. Let's say they run parallel with the EPA in writing the proposed rules, publishing them, public comment, and implementing them. That puts us at the end of July, 2010.
So you think, under the MOST optimistic scenario that cap and trade would be 'a drag' on the economy before July, 2010?
A much more realistic scenario for a cap and trade mechanism would be to double (at least) the total time, from 16 months to 32-36 months. We're now talking about it going into place in the November, 2012 to March, 2013 time period.
So you think, under a more realistic scenario that cap and trade would be 'a drag' on the economy before the end of 2012 or early 2013?
As to the rest of your 'MISTAKES', they are straw man arguments and red herrings that I won't even waste any time dissecting.
Hu Chi,
I think the fundamental difference between the two sides of the environmental debate boil down to this. One side (ours) comes from the perspective of "We're all in this together". The other side thinks it's all about immediate self-gratification, and let the consequences be damned.
Their argument appeals to a visceral human urge; instant gratification with no fear or even consideration of the consequences to oneself or anyone else is something even the most basic animals indulge in instinctively. The reason why parents watch what their children eat is because if they didn't, every child would eat nothing but junk food. Giving in to these primal urges is why people die from alcoholism and drug addiction. And these hungers are never really sated.
The question is, how do we communicate the message of delayed gratification, of moderation and thinking about the consequences of our actions first when the other side is instinctively more appealing?
We weren't always like this, but nowadays what is killing Americans is excess. In 1910, the major killers were all infectious diseases or poverty. Now, it's mostly overindulgence-we die from smoking, drinking, using drugs, eating junk food and not exercising. Used to be we had common enemies to unite us. Political ideology would be swept aside during times of plague or famine. But now, we are our own plague, and the enemy is primal urges of which we have lost the capacity to refrain from indulging.
Have you noticed how fat Republicans are?
fred said...
There was an ice age 150,000 years, . . .
??????
For 150,000 years?
150,000 years ago? And was that when it began, or when it ended?
FYI - the last Ice Age (The Pleistocene) is dated to have existed from 1.8 million years ago, and lasted until about 6,000 to 12,000 years ago. Within the Pleistocene, there were four periods of major glaciation. In the US, they are identified as the Nebraskan, the Kansan, the Illinoian and the Wisconsinan.
Bart DePalma said...
Rasmussen has pegged the presidential election results nearly exactly for the past two cycles.
Rasmussen's FINAL poll was close.
However, if you look at all the polls taken throughout all the cycles, you'll see that Rasmussen was the most likely to be the outlier poll until the final weeks. At that time, Rasmussen's polls started to veer into the rest of the polls.
Since the Rasmussen polls were the most likely to be the outliers, the question then rises "Was Rasmussen's polling accurate, and all other pollsters inaccurate; or was Rasmussen attempting to steer the public with his polling?"
My feeling is that it was the latter, not the former, especially since Rasmussen's polls moved to join the mainstream, not the opposite.
Obama's approval ratings declined some? Especially in the South?
George Bush won re-election in 2004 with approval ratings under 50%. He just got HIS supporters to the polls. It didn't matter what the rest of America thought.
Obama will be fine if his approval stays above 55% and even at 51% he'll still be reelected handily.
Cugel,
When are you going to update your blog?
@Pragmatus I love your word "stupicity" --duplicity amongst the not-very-bright."
I thought of it as dimnicity amongst the not-very-bright.
I liked it too. In fact, I liked it well enough to register stupicity.com. Suggestions for use of the domain welcome, although no promise to follow up on all or any suggestions.
Erik Nilsson,
Here's a link to an article that could be the basis for one definition and/or illustration of "dimnicity" and/or "stupicity":
http://www.startribune.com/politics/national/congress/41242412.html?elr=KArksLckD8EQDUoaEyqyP4O:DW3ckUiD3aPc:_Yyc:aUUsZ
The pertinent part is Rep. Boner's comment that the Re-pubic-con Party members in Congress "ought to get the idea out of their minds that they are legislators. But what they can be is communicators."
According to Webster's Revised Unabridged Dictionary, the word 'legislator' is derived from the Latin 'legis', defined as 'a proposer of a law'. So Rep. Boner is correct if, but only if, he uses the 'legis' definition - you cannot be a legislator if you do not propose laws.
Mike-
I take your idiot and up you one. The economy is a partially self fulfilling prophecy, thus fomenting uncertainty in an economy that craves certainty is just plain stupid, so congrats on winning the stupid medal for the day. Cap and trade during a recession is a bad idea no matter how long it takes to triple my electric bill.
Hu Chui-
You teach science, I have a Ph.D. and used to teach science - neither of those won't get you on the bus. The arrogance of the scientific community is the hubris of thinking our little knowledge represents enough to claim global knowledge.
As to the ice age, I was talking about when it started - here you go:
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/paleo/globalwarming/paleobefore.html
As to our amazing knowledge of climate, one good eruption screws up every model out there and the arrogant viewpoint is the one that says the way it is RIGHT NOW is the way it will always be, when we know that is wrong:
http://www.geology.sdsu.edu/how_volcanoes_work/climate_effects.html
What about the thing out there that heats the damn planet? Heard of the sun? You reall think we have a clue whats it heat cycle is like when can't even tell you how it truly functions and what a sunspot is? What about the sunspot lows in the Maunder and Dalton minima that resulted in global cooling:
http://www-das.uwyo.edu/~geerts/cwx/notes/chap02/sunspots.html
You do know that we have a sunspot low right now, and no idea when the next sunspot cycle will start - and if it doesn't we are going to be very glad we have some extra carbon in the atmosphere:
http://sidc.oma.be/products/ri_hemispheric/
Get over yourselves and admit how little you know. That said, it is true that carbon dioxide causes global warming, we are in a local warming period and should cut down on carbon burning, it is stupid. That said, to kill the global economy while doing so will starve an immense number of people to - poor always take the brunt - so lets get over our single minded obsession of the day and take a moderate approach to fixing it that actually makes sense - and respects the huge global economic problem we currently have. Moderation in all things, even the science "sky is falling" scenario of the day. How did that bird flu thing work out? How did the coming ice age from the '70's work out?
Oh, and anyone got a good asteroid scare that also screws up the global warming scenario?
Here is my favorite local science scenario that completely overwhelms the carbon burning global warming scenario, a good eruption. Know what Yellowstone is? A super volcano caldera that is overdue to erupt:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yellowstone_Caldera
Note that earthquake swarm in Dec. and Jan. of this year, it came very close to being something the geologist noted and raised a warning about. If one of those earthquakes was over 4.0 or 4.5 it was would have been lead story in every paper - but I guess since it wasn't all you folks can think we know it all - don't worry, be happy, right?
My favorite long term, non-local story that screws up every global warming scenario is the sunspot one (see data above) - we have several near past events that show that global cooling is a major issue and we don't even include it in any climate model? Why don't we? I will tell you why we don't - the global warming carbon cycle scientists publish in completely different journals than the folks studying the sun - it is really almost that simple. Science is not the problem, the global science funding system and the scientists are the problem.
A significantly less likely, but still possible scenario is hitting an asteroid. We are lucky that the young earth cleared out alot of the near earth asteroids that could hit by, well, hitting them during formation of the solar system as a young planet...but it WILL happen again, do you know when?
http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?id=what-is-the-chance-of-an
Statler
So the question is: what are the underlying causes of the "other side's" inability to grasp the concept of environmental and social interconnectedness? Or, perhaps more charitably, how is it that all of us can be more aware of the connections?
Surely all of us go through the day acting as though we're self-directed separate individuals, but when it comes to environmental policy, war, human rights, global economics, etc., what's bad for you is ultimately bad for me. I/we can't get far enough outside the system to benefit at the expense of others.
I don't flatter myself that I'm stating anything other than a commonplace philosophical/religious notion, variations of which inform most of what I believe (if not most of what I do, alas). But it doesn't seem to take much to steer people into an every man for himself, nobody can tell me what to do mindset.
A little abuse here, a missing parent there, even a twisted gene maybe, and life becomes a relentless quest to protect myself, keep what's mine, get what I can get and the devil take the hindmost. Are you listening, Rush?
It's ironic that the party that most strongly disputes Darwinism defends a social and political version of it more barbaric than anything found in nature.
And it's not as if Democrats are great exemplars of cosmic consciousness, either. We're just a little less likely to scoff at the idea, particularly with Obama around to at least pay lip service to it.
It's a start.
Recent global cooling has been the problem, that does not mean it still is and it is possible the world has changed and the current "sky is falling" folks are right, but can you be sure? Our window of data is really pretty small, even with ice cores.
Local recent cooling events (correlated with those sunspot minima above):
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/River_Thames_frost_fairs
I have always been struck that the rise of science is correlated with the end of the little ice age and thus the increased food supply that might allow more stable governments and more stable science.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dark_Ages
I have just noted the correlation and said I was going to go look into it some day. I am sure there is a book or thesis out there on it, can anyone point me to one?
Including the results for which Fox paid, Rasmussen released polling results for 27 states during the last 10 days (10/26 thru 11/4) of the 2008 campaign (per RCP) in addition to their daily national tracking.
IIRC, Nate's Rasmussen pollster rating was among the better ones so his results carried some weight in Nate's final projections.
For those 27 states and the national result, this is the breakdown regarding who was closer to the actual percentage difference between Obama and McCain rounded to the whole:
Nate—Arkansas, Colorado, Florida, Indiana, Kentucky, Maine, Michigan, Minnesota, Mississippi, Montana, Nevada, New Hampshire, New Jersey, Ohio, Oregon, Pennsylvania, South Dakota, Virginia and Wisconsin
Rasmussen—Alaska and Georgia
Tie—Arizona, California, Illinois, Missouri, New Mexico, North Carolina and the United States of America
Fun with numbers on a Saturday night.
Oh, and I forgot nuclear winter.
http://www.pynthan.com/vri/nwaos.htm
All this said, we should cut down on carbon and plan for its effects, lets just keep our heads about it and not screw stuff up some other way. Humans are essentially (genetically) the same as any other mammal. I am a talking dog, as are you, as is every scientist out there. Are they really THAT smart?
Fred
There are indeed several cataclysmic possibilities that can occur on an indefinite time scale. If the Yellowstone supervolcano does go, all bets are off.
As for an asteroid, I think we might be able to do something about it if we spotted one, but not if we were worried about what it might do to the economy.
But fossil CO2 is our own special, sick contribution, and the likelihood that it just happens to be a good thing and has no connection to observable environmental degradation is pretty small. To suggest otherwise seems like a rationalization for conducting business as usual and for the usual reasons.
I'd love to be wrong.
Hu Chui-
Read my posts, you are right. My only point is that we need to keep it in perspective and not drive the economy into the ditch further while fixing it. LEt's take a deep breath and think through the short and long term consequences of the fix as well as the warming itself.
The truly sad thing is, the last eight years when we had an expanding economy was the time to institute the change, it is much harder to do this and remain stable when we have a recession or depression. All I ask is that we wait until we get some growth before we ramp up.
Hu Chui-
What about the non-cataclysmic sunspot global cooling issue that may, or may not, be starting right now?
Fred
Point taken. We've been out of synch on the posts here, but suffice it to say that I don't put much stock in any particular climate scenario.
Still, we do what we can and try to be responsible for our excesses.
Fred
I'm out of synch again, so I posted while you were typing.
Re sunspots, I'm not convinced that the warming effect of CO2 is the only significant effect, such that it could offset sunspot-driven cooling. Ocean acidification due to CO2 absorption would still be an apocalyptic event if it progressed to the point of inhibiting calcium carbonate shell formation.
Hu Chi,
You know, living in New Orleans, where drugs and booze and violence are fairly commonplace and always kind of have been, I'm not really so impressed with the idea of a person having had a rough childhood and using that to justify callousness. I have compassion for those who have had to go through that, and I also know a great many people who have experienced this and managed not to grow up to be total assholes. After a certain point, every one of us, no matter our circumstances of birth, has to take responsibility for our own lives.
This doesn't mean we can’t have compassion for people who are suffering, even for those who are suffering from self-inflicted wounds-somebody shows up at the emergency ward with a bullet in their foot, you treat them, no matter if they shot themselves or not. However, this doesn't mean we have to make excuses for them either.
That said, the question isn't so much about whether we are better than they. That's a trap as well. What's more important is how do we tap into whatever maturity they have to help them draw the conclusion that the better thing is not to milk the planet for all the oil profits they can squeeze out of it? How do we get them to see themselves as part of the world, and not apart from the world? I'm looking for a means of communicating the responsibility to them rather than looking for reasons why individual members of their party may indulge in assholery. I want to know how we can get them to care enough about their kids to not hand the next generations a used up planet that will be difficult to survive in.
I think the reason why Obama has been reasonably successful so far in his ecological policies is because he can communicate to the innate sense we all have that there is something more important than gluttony.
Thich Nhat Hanh says that the Unites States has perfected samsara, that we have become hungry ghosts. And when I look at myself and my surroundings, I think maybe he's right. I look at what we stood for in the early 20th century-delayed gratification with the hope that the future of our kids would be better than the present of ourselves, hard work was a virtue, people had a responsibility to each other, the needs of the whole outweighed the desires of the few. I wonder how that turned into "the best way you can help us rebuild its to go shopping" and Rick Santelli screaming that people who lost their retirement incomes/401Ks when Lehman and Bear and Madoff and Merrill collapsed were losers who 'deserved it', especially when the CEO of Merrill is now famous for milking the company and its investors for all he could get out of it and Madoff is no longer an alleged thief-now he's just a thief.
I look at this whole 'fuck everyone else, it's all about me" and it kinda makes me feel a little sick. It somehow became a part of our national identity to never think about the consequences of what we do. Drill baby drill. Spend spend spend. Sell as many subprime mortgages as you can, never stop to think about who you're hurting along the way. Turn on the TV and see shows like "who wants to marry a millionaire", Donald Trump's a hero. The news is just sound and visual effects without any content. The most famous musicians make the most ostentatious displays of wealth they can to make sure our kids grow up learning that all that really matters is how many cars you own. eMpTyVee offers reality shows we can watch because we're so convinced that our own lives are inadequate.
You can't blame that on child abuse, because we're all doing it, even those of us who had good parents.
The real question is, with all this emptiness drowning us out, how will we ever communicate responsibility and maturity to an immature culture?
fred—
What date do you give for the rise of science.
I thought you might find this interesting.
My comment elsewhere after first watching it:
Very nice.
The Sahara was grassland...
Out of warming and a grass we know as bread wheat came civilization and out of civilization came a significantly better ability to weather the disruptive effects of climate change.
Not things. Not self.
Lets' face it, Monty Python has as much insight as most Nobel Prize winners:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NQu_RRLbVDA
In an irony that the original cast must love, the song was redone by a the average religious southern nutball country singer:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oT7bAuOz8ao
> I have always been struck that the rise of science is correlated with the end of the little ice age and thus the increased food supply that might allow more stable governments and more stable science.
In Europe, where being cold was a problem at the time. But what happens when if your civilization is already warm enough? Hint: It can involve things like being buried in sand.
There is decent evidence that climate change tends to lead change from status quo. Which tends to be of particular concern for those "on top".
> A super volcano caldera that is overdue to erupt
This is an extremely poor characterization. This isn't like a fairly regular earthquake zone that results from two tectonic plates rubbing against each other. The eruptions are far more variable.
Now it isn't %100 certain what will happen in the future, a lot of variables and "wild cards". However that is a poor reason to ignore something we do have a good measure of control over and that we have a good hunch has caused and will cause an extra component of instability.
P.S. I'm surprised missing from that list of "cooling" trivia is the interesting man-made one that there is some indirect evidence for. The localized effect of the high level clouds created due to heavy concentrations of jet contrails.
Statler-
Yes, a country that could love Sarah Palin and has a huge percentage of people who don't graduate high school is one where moving forward is difficult - so just drink more.
Dwight-
Trivia? Get over yourself already, the sign of one who has actually never done science, or one who believes there own press, is one who treats it like religion and does not understand that absolute hilarity of that position.
Thanks for the laugh.
Dwight-
I was speaking of science, not civilization. The Mayans and their predecessors, and the Egyptians, did not practice science, but nice try.
Why not try looking up the scientific method and getting back to me - observation is not science.
Fred
I love that song. My daughter learned it when she was about twelve. Now she's in college studying biology.
I'm more of a Life of Brian fan, but the Galaxy Song is great.
Maybe there is a better word for throwing up factoids without connection. But if you think you were providing some sort of reasoning in-between the factoids I think it's you that could use some "getting over". :/
Throwing up your hands and not doing what you can do because of the possibly of an occurrence that you don't have control over? Hardly someone that should be lecturing about hilarity of a position.
Nah, its the Meaning of Life for me - the skewering of religion and the man is even better in the Meaning of Life.
They were all great though...
Dwight-
You clearly either cannot read or cannot assimilate the argument, start at the beginning and actually read the posts - the connection between the facts is clear, as is the argument.
> Why not try looking up the scientific method and getting back to me - observation is not science.
Advancement in knowledge. "Science" is merely one step forward in that.
You are cherry picking of a single correlation (with pretty dubious timing to boot).
Dwight-
Isn't it more arrogant to think that based on limited knowledge to think we should quickly change the world because, well, you said so?
Folks treat science too often like they used to treat religion.
Dwight-
Your definition of science is just dead wrong. Science is the finding of fact by experiment and hypothesis, and attempting to remove the human factor. You have clearly never done it.
> Folks treat science too often like they used to treat religion.
From the guy that was treating it like the only advancement in knowledge of human history that mattered?
> Isn't it more arrogant to think that based on limited knowledge to think we should quickly change the world because, well, you said so?
Well....
Treating what like the only? Science? I just slammed scientists as talking dogs. Are you drunk?
So your link defends your extreme position by saying that extreme positions are good? You are drunk...
Sober up and learn to read.
Night all, SNL is wrapping.
From Timeline of the history of scientific method
1327 — Ockham's razor clearly formulated (by William of Ockham)
1403 — Yongle Encyclopedia, the first collaborative encyclopedia
1590 — Controlled experiments by Francis Bacon
1600 — First dedicated laboratory
1620 — Novum Organum published, (Francis Bacon)
1637 — First Scientific method (René Descartes)
1650 — Society of experts (the Royal Society)
1650 — Experimental evidence established as the arbiter of truth (the Royal Society)
1665 — Repeatability established (Robert Boyle)
1665 — Scholarly journals established
1675 — Peer review begun
1687 — Hypothesis/prediction (Isaac Newton)
1710 — The problem of induction identified by David Hume
1753 — Description of a controlled experiment using two identical populations with only one variable.[1]
1812 — The formulation by Hans Christian Ørsted of the Latin-German mixed term Gedankenexperiment (lit. experiment conducted in the thoughts , or thought experiment). Although the method had been in use by philosophers since antiquity.
The Little Ice age is dated as beginning anywhere from 1250 to 1650 and ending sometime around 1850.
Ahhh, Dwight modifies his post AFTER I respond. Nice.
Now you say:
"From the guy that was treating it like the only advancement in knowledge of human history that mattered?"
Umm, no. I said nothing about science and its effect on society actually. You are reading an argument that does not exist. I must assume this is because you are uneducated, drunk, stupid, or all of the above.
For the record - IMO science mattered to move us forward, and I think it does help as it removes the human mind from its biased, evolutionarily limited self. That said, I do not think science deserves the privileged position (almost unquestioned) it currently has in our society as sometimes the experiments lead to new facts ans the hypothesis changes - for good reason - and we have already acted based on the prior hypothesis.
Clearly, the understanding of nuance and balance is beyond you - welcome to modern politics I guess. Moderation used to be a value.
@fred: this
I was speaking of science, not civilization.
You were focusing down on one small part of civilization advances. "Science" is just another step in humanity's collective gain in knowledge and understanding. It is YOU that is putting it above other things as some sort of special unique thing. :/ It isn't magic, it's just another technique in our repertoire, like addition or written word.
So your link defends your extreme position by saying that extreme positions are good? You are drunk...
So, I'm pointing out that YOU are excluding a middle ... along with being a real thickie. *rolls eyes*
P.S. Thank you for that work, loner.
Dwight-
I agree with your statement, why you are picking a fight about something we agree on shows you need a nap - or more.
I agree with you:
""Science" is just another step in humanity's collective gain in knowledge and understanding. It is YOU that is putting it above other things as some sort of special unique thing. :/ It isn't magic, it's just another technique in our repertoire, like addition or written word."
And please make your argument and move on. Quit modifying posts after they are up.
Loner? Now I am a loner? And what great knowledge do you base that on?
You are pretty clearly losing, just keep digging...
> Ahhh, Dwight modifies his post AFTER I respond. Nice.
You can't modify comments. Or at least I can't. Maybe it requires some different login?
SNL ends, good night.
> oner? Now I am a loner? And what great knowledge do you base that on?
Read the posts, "loner" expounded on just how fcuked up your initial "rise of science" premise was.
Then do yourself a favour and go get some sleep.
Fred
Loner is another commenter. It's easy to get confused in this kind of forum. Assume the best, not the worst.
fred said...
You teach science, I have a Ph.D.
and
As to the ice age, I was talking about when it started - here you go:
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/paleo/globalwarming/paleobefore.html
Where did you earn your Ph.D.? The University of Pop Tarts?
From the link you provided, it clearly states "Latest Interglacial [period]".
From http://pubs.usgs.gov/gip/ice_age/ice_age.pdf
Although the Great Ice Age began a million or more years ago, the last major ice sheet to spread across the North Central United States. . . . [emphasis added]
Look up 'Pleistocene'. You'll find that it is the name of an Ice Age, something that lasted from 1 million to 1.8 million years, possibly longer, and with many periods of ebb and flow of glaciers, called glacial and interglacial periods. We are now in one of those interglacial periods, one that started sometime probably between 6,000 and 12,000 years ago.
With your reading comprehension problem, it's a wonder that you even got to Grad School to get a Masters degree.
It's disingenuous to list Occam's razor as the start of science when Democritus posed the atomic theory in 460 BCE, Hypatia was practicing astronomy in 370 CE, and Archimedes was practicing physics in 287 BCE.
Science is not something that was founded by any one particular person. It's not like someone sat down at some point and said, "Okay-nobody's ever observed nature in terms other than the supernatural before-, and I'm going to try it for the very first time"
The first scientists were probably our hominid ancestors-maybe australopithecines, even, though Homo habilis sounds like a fairly conservative estimate- that discovered how to harness the natural world through the use of simple tools. In a sense, when you see an animal using a stick to gather termites out of a rotting log for its supper-it's doing science. It defines a question-how do I get at those yummy termites? It gathers some background information-termites cling to sticks and hang out in rotting logs. It forms a hypothesis-if I jam this stick into that rotting log and scrape around a bit, termites will cling to it. It tests the hypothesis. It makes an analysis-holy shit, there are yummy termites on my stick! It then interprets the data-this is a way to get a nice snack-then publishes the results in a peer-reviewed scientific journal-namely, Scientific Orangutan.
Okay fine, so they don't actually have their own journal, but showing it to other orangutans does count as publishing, and since other orangutans are likely to repeat your experiments to test your theory, it's not that different from what human scientists do.
Which is why I trust science more than religion. Religion had to be invented. Someone had to found it, and there's this whole dramatic story about when it began behind each of them. Science on the other hand predates man. You do it instinctively-observe how an infant explores the world around him. Nobody has to teach him to do that. It comes naturally to us, as it does to many other living things.
So please do not treat science as some novel hobby that's less than 5 centuries old. I tell you, it predates your god.
Were alchemists scientists, who used the scientific method? Probably not, but then again . . .
From Wikipedia:
Alchemy, a part of the Occult Tradition, is both a philosophy and a practice with an aim of achieving ultimate wisdom as well as immortality, involving the improvement of the alchemist as well as the making of several substances described as possessing unusual properties.
Was the practice of alchemy important in the development of the scientific method, and modern science? Definitely.
Again from Wikipedia:
The practical aspect of alchemy generated the basics of modern inorganic chemistry, namely concerning procedures, equipment and the identification and use of many current substances.
Because alchemy and alchemists contributed to modern science, how do we classify alchemy and alchemists? As scientists?
Where is the dividing line between alchemists and scientists?
IS there a dividing line, or is it a part of the continuum, where one part slowly and gradually evolves into another part, similar to where one species can evolve into another, and where sometimes the two related species can and do co-exist at the same time?
Statler—
It's disingenuous to list Occam's razor as the start of science...
I wasn't. What I listed is all the entries that could (the first six) and did (the last nine) occur during the Little Ice Age from an included wikipedia.org link on the history of scientific method.
My interest is this tiresome subject rested entirely on this 10:21 PM fred observation:
I have always been struck that the rise of science is correlated with the end of the little ice age and thus the increased food supply that might allow more stable governments and more stable science.
I was trying to find out, with no success, if he really meant to correlate the rise of science with the period after 1850 and, if so, why.
No agenda or attempt to confuse. It just caught my attention when I was reading after posting my unrelated comment having to do with Rasmussen 6 minutes later.
Dwight—
You're welcome.
Mike in Maryland—
We are now in one of those interglacial periods... I used to point this out when I did take an interest. I'd include the ellipses and then add: we hope.
OK, I'll bite.
I say apes came up with both science and religion.
We know chimps are creative in developing techniques for exploiting their world. In their own way, they experiment with tools and methods.They consciously adapt to their physical environment. It's a starting point for science.
I don't recall the source, but there's a film of several chimps in the wild who start doing a kind of dance when they hear thunder. The dance seems to mean something like "OK,we can't actually see you, but you're clearly a big guy up there who can zap the shit out of us whenever you want to and there's not a damn thing we can do about it except dance around and hope you like it, so hey, we're just dancing. Please don't kill us. Man are you powerful." I'm calling that the religious impulse.
So science is about collecting information about the world and learning to predict and control things, and religion is about living with stuff you can't control. Some religions do a better job than others of accommodating scientific discovery. Others seem to have a more adversarial relationship to science.
It's the latter sort of religions that scientifically-minded people rebel against, and not without reason. But science is in no position to take the place of religion as a way of helping people come to grips with the larger issues of death and the meaning of life (Monty Python notwithstanding). As a religion, scientism os lacking.
I also think it's important to distinguish religion from theology. Buddhism, for example does not necessarily involve anything we would recognize as a deity, and as far as I'm concerned, is all the better for it.
should be "scientism IS lacking"
loner said...
Mike in Maryland—
We are now in one of those interglacial periods... I used to point this out when I did take an interest. I'd include the ellipses and then add: we hope.
I agree on the added two words for two reasons:
If we're in one, how soon will the next glaciation begin (probably not for a few centuries, at least);
Or more probably, how soon (in years or decades) until we upset the balance of nature enough through a carbon-based energy system to prohibit Earth from entering another glaciation period before how many thousands of centuries to have elapsed? Or would that be tens of thousands of centuries to have elapsed?
...and it would it be better or worse for the people to delay the next glaciation?
U of Chicago Mikey, with a post-doc at MIT. It was not in your area, so I apologize for getting the name wrong but the point still holds as the point was climate is changing all the time.
You are the perfect example of the problem with scientists and science (I am one, and have worked with Nobel winners) is that they do exactly what you do - they attack any error and throw away the real point in the argument, often throwing the scientist away at the same time. It makes discussion across disciplines nearly impossible when what we really need are discussions across disciplines!!!!
Congrats on being a science biased person, just as biased as any religious one.
As for some errors, I was not drunk posting, but lets say I was not sober posting either. Sorry for that.
loner-
I read a great book on the little ice age awhile back, but not its ties to societal change - although the whole dark ages rise of science does have some interesting date correlations.
As for 1850, as you can see from the data here - 1850 may or may not be a true little ice age event, putting it real end around 1650 for some scholars.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Little_Ice_Age
As for the rise of science - I would argue it comes as much from the rise of free thought allowed after the reformation in the 16th and 17th century that led to the enlightenment in the 17th and 18th, and these dates correlate well with the end of the last big little ice age event - around 1650.
Best use of cool graphics and data to make a point?
http://projects.flowingdata.com/walmart/
'''
An argument we are at the beginning of the housing crisis. I dont fully buy this, or I don't want to, as this scenario would make Obama into Carter.
http://optionarmageddon.ml-implode.com/2009/03/12/updated-debt-stats/
> As for 1850, as you can see from the data here - 1850 may or may not be a true little ice age event, putting it real end around 1650 for some scholars.
You know what else started to really change food production? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Potato
Yes, food production was important for stability and free time left over after the basic needs of survival are addressed. But that isn't the same as going up further is particularly good for a particular region that's got it good now. That's like always shouting that lowering taxes is good for the economy. Where you are matters.
> but lets say I was not sober posting either.
It showed, it really showed. It was exactly what my real response was to you asking ME if I was drunk. :/ Your Appeals to Authority are particularly egregious when you are stoned out of your gourd, though they aren't a whole lot better in light of morning.
Incidentally fred, read the first few lines of this section (and the associated citations, because just reading the wiki entry by itself isn't a good idea): http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Potato#Role_in_world_food_supply
The potato (and other New World crops) were needed to save European agriculture from the effects of the drop in temperature. It worked out there, but climate change is dangerous.
Dwight-
Your arguments are not intelligible to me, sorry, have a great day.
Incidentally fred, read the first few lines of this section (and the associated citations, because just reading the wiki entry by itself isn't a good idea): http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Potato#Role_in_world_food_supply
The potato (and other New World crops) were needed to save European agriculture from the effects of the drop in temperature. It worked out there, but climate change is dangerous.
As well in the long run encouraging us to get off our gasoline asses and push forward isn't a bad idea at all. Moving forward is how you keep ahead of the curve.
To your second post - yes - I argued that twenty posts up the thread.
> Your arguments are not intelligible to me
Funny, I can understand yours ... and they scream "I'm a fool". :/
The world is sadly littered with PhDs that don't actually know if their ass is punched or bored. I guess we can put you in that category. :/
> To your second post - yes - I argued that twenty posts up the thread.
Then WTF was all this other drivel about? Because you just spent a fuckton of posts that are undercut by that. How about you start again now that [I assume] you are straight?
Cap and trade = push us forward.
Hu Chi,
Well, you make certain assumptions about what those primates are thinking. You assume they have assigned a personage to the source of the thunder. You don't know that. The dance could be seen as an attempt to communicate to the collective community the awe felt by the thunder, in much the same way that I can be awed by a beautiful mountainscape without assuming that the mountain was created by anything.
Not every religion involves gods. For someone who claims to understand Buddhism, of which many forms are completely nontheistic, I'm surprised that your first instinct is to assign a role of primacy to a deity when describing general features present in all religions.
No Dwight, I don't even think you understand the implications of your own arguments. I am done trying to educate you, on any thread.
> I am done trying to educate you, on any thread.
Excellent. That'll allow you plenty of time to get back to your highly scientific job that you seem best suited for, PhD of Washroom Towel Guy for Nobel Prize winners.
LOL! They have always said that people with a difference in IQ of 25 points can't even communicate - thanks for proving it.
@OleForsberg:
The correct methodology for deciding what degree of polynomial to use as the best-fit curve is to test at each degree whether the Null Hypothesis that the lead coefficient equals zero can be confidently rejected. That is, the best-fit cubic will always be a little different from the best-fit quadratic, but it can be tested whether putting in a non-zero degree-three term really is significantly better.
Nate's curve-fitting to the polls last fall showed a lot of wiggle, obviously was a rather high-degree polynomial, but that is because there was a huge number of data-points. With only a moderate number of data-points, the cubic and even quadratic terms are often statistically indistinguishable from zero.
Bob X-
The truly stunning thing about last fall's poll numbers were how those completely different polling numbers a month before the election, even a week before, all converged at the end. Hmmmm, interesting...
Mike in Maryland said...
Bart DePalma said... Rasmussen has pegged the presidential election results nearly exactly for the past two cycles.
Rasmussen's FINAL poll was close.
However, if you look at all the polls taken throughout all the cycles, you'll see that Rasmussen was the most likely to be the outlier poll until the final weeks. At that time, Rasmussen's polls started to veer into the rest of the polls.
Since the Rasmussen polls were the most likely to be the outliers, the question then rises "Was Rasmussen's polling accurate, and all other pollsters inaccurate; or was Rasmussen attempting to steer the public with his polling?"
Apart from the point that the final poll is the only one that counts, it is doubtful that Rasmussen was the true outlier in the lead up to the election:
1) Rasmussen uses likely voters all the way through while many of its competitors like Gallup start with registered voters and then shift to more accurate likely voter models.
2) Rasmussen's likely voter model is extraordinarily stable compared to other polls that jump all over the place. Zogby and Gallup game their models over time.
3) The idea that Rasmussen tries to drive voters with their polling (presumably toward the GOP) does not appear to have much merit given that Rasmussen's likely voter model constantly showed an ahistorically large Dem advantage and predicted the election for Obama from the time the markets dove in September. This Elephant was not deriving any comfort from Rasmussen in 2008.
Statler
I do tend to assume that an animist approach to religion is historically earlier, and that animism involves projecting or inferring personality at work in natural forces. I see it as an extrapolation from things known to things unknown. In chimp society the familiar dominant male would be the role which would be projected onto the unseen "being" responsible for the thunder and lightning.
While I freely admit that I'm only speculating, it's pretty clear that Zeus and Jehovah are essentially the same irascible, thunderbolt-hurling sky god to whom I imagine the chimps are reacting.
I see nontheistic religiosity as a further development in human history that dates to approximately the fifth or sixth century BC, and would include Buddhism and Taoism among them. Despite Taoism's reference to the mysterious femaleness of the universe, the taoists' reluctance to go beyond that vague characterization puts them in another category than, say, the semitic religions.
As to having feelings of awe at natural beauty without inferring a personality behind it, I agree that it's a basic human phenomenon that probably does come from earlier primates. Coincidentally, I saw a clip a week or so back where chimps were reacting to a nearby waterfall in a way that suggested something like awe or euphoria.
The thunder issue is different in that thunder comes from an unseen source and is clearly terrifying.
Having said all that, I admit that the chimp stuff is pure speculation. But it is fascinating.
fred,
Aren't you forgetting one of the most, if not THE most, important events of the Middle Ages?
The Black Death?
Swift, abrupt, and devastating changes in society within a period of about one decade?
Now go back to your Fruit Loops University, and revel in the glory of your Ph.D. I don't think anyone else is awed by it (I'm not for sure), and I doubt if anyone else is flattered to have such an 'esteemed' commentator here at fivethirtyeight (except maybe PK, MR, SA and the other screeching monkeys from the extreme right wing).
As an addendum, fred, consider that when there is rapid natural climate change (historically measured in hundreds or thousands of years), it causes catastrophic changes to the ecosystem for some species. Take the end of the Age of Dinosaurs as an example - whatever the cause, be it the comet that created the Chicxulub crater, the massive eruption of volcanoes in India, some combination of those and/or some other cause or causes at the KT boundary.
The dinosaurs prevailed during the Cretaceous Period, the Chicxulub comet and Indian volcanic eruptions are dated to exactly the KT boundary time period, and dinosaurs disappeared right at, or right after the KT boundary. Some thing, or some things, caused a catastrophic climate change, and the ecology dramatically changed.
If all the evidence scientifics have gathered supporting that most of the current climate change has been caused by mankind, it will mean a change on the order that happened at the time of the KT boundary, and in a period of time that rivals that climate change.
Mike
I agree that there's a real possibility that we've screwed ourselves so badly that there's no good way out. We must assume, however, that we can pull up into a soft landing via some combination of conservation, new energy sources, and maybe a high-tech way of reversing current CO2 levels or mitigating their effect.
There's no harm in hoping our model is flawed and that we're seeing a natural and temporary climate blip. But if we bet on that and are wrong, we'll have to live with the knowledge that we might have done something. I can't do that, especially when I think of my daughter.
I have a hard time watching Titanic (Kate Winslet excepted) because I'm confronted with the human tendency to minimize the possibility of catastrophe. One sees the same thing in pre WWII Germany as well--a tragic failure to properly read the warnings.
Hu Chi
Hinduism is the oldest religion in the world. Many forms of it are nontheistic, even borderline atheistic.
Not everyone looks to the sky and sees Zeus.
There is a tendency to assume that human knowledge is on a linear, progressive march from total ignorance to genius. If we look at the history of Europe, we see the Dark Ages framed by periods of enlightenment-the Greeks and Romans understood their world far better than the medievals.
I'm not suggesting that Hominids and Australopithecines were holding public debates on why prions cause disease or building super colliders in hopes of discovering the Higgs Boson Particle. I am however loathe to subscribe to the notion that ancient=completely ignorant, either. Particularly when we consider the scale of the time separating us form them. We would be in a much better position to asses their tendency to ascribe the unknown to the supernatural vs a more Hegelian tendency to simply suspend judgment of things not understood if there were written accounts of their thoughts as they gazed at the heavens during extreme weather events. The cruel effects of time and tide are more likely to have eroded any such records if they ever existed, and even if by some freakish accident such a record were preserved, would we even recognize it as writing, and even if by the odd chance that we did, what are the odds we could translate such a thing? It's difficult enough to translate texts from the ancient world-there are several fragments from Ancient China that are believed to be writing, but nobody has any idea what they mean, and that's from a mere 6000 years ago. After a certain point, ancient alphabets and grammatical structures and words are simply lost to the senescence of our species.
I remember an old picture I used to see all the time as a child, which begins at the left of the frame with a fish struggling to get out of a pond, and a series of animals marching toward the right with man at the right of the frame. It's intended ot convey this belief that there is a great chain of being and that we are the penultimate of all living things, the most successful species and the most advanced, the most evolved. And it's bullshit. The assumption that our development is linear is false-there have been many dark ages throughout history. The assumption that we have the largest brains of any hominid, and therefore the greatest degree of intellect is also false-neandertals had larger cranial capacities than we do now. Since the brain is organic and has the unfortunate tendency to rot, we don't have a complete neandertal brain to examine for it,s structure, but if the cranial cavity was larger than ours, odds are pretty good so was the brain itself. If a larger brain is associated with the increased probability of greater intellect, it is possible that the most intelligent member of the Hominid genus is now extinct. Which conjures a rather frightening possibility that our intelligence may not save us from destruction, and that luck plays a larger role than we'd care to be comfortable with.
Did those neandertals have religion? some think so, because neandertal graves typically have grave goods buried with the corpse-and they are usually buried in fairly consistent patterns. But what do those grave goods signify? A belief in an afterlife is the immediate assumption many jump to. We don't really know, however. We have, as I said above, no written records of what the neandertals thought about anything, much less their predecessors.
So is the belief in gods something inherent? I would argue that it's impossible to know. And, with anything that is impossible to know, the wisest course is always to admit the fact rather than coming down on either side of the argument. Did ancient man believe in gods? Maybe, maybe not. Until you invent a time machine (and if you do, please take me with you) we will never know for sure.
Statler
I can dig it.
FYI I've got a supplier of Higgs Bosons if you're short.
Dude, you know, I just ran out of Higgs Bosons!
BTW, if you ever want to fuck with a Young earth Creationist- tell them about the writings that predate the estimated date of creation in the Bible.
Bishop Usher's calculation of when the earth was created? 4004 BCE
The estimated age of the fragments posted above? 6000 BCE.
Which means the Chinese were writing stuff about 1600 years before god created the universe.
Statler
I presume you're talking about the stuff that God wrote in Chinese and tucked away so unbelievers would be tricked into doubting His perfectly clear message to the faithful.
Arf, arf.
Once upon a time, Rasmussen had integrity. He has sold it now for a mess of Repukeliscumian pottage. He's just a harmonica for the GOP.
看房子,買房子,建商自售,自售,台北新成屋,台北豪宅,新成屋,豪宅,美髮儀器,美髮,儀器,髮型,EMBA,MBA,學位,EMBA,專業認證,認證課程,博士學位,DBA,PHD,在職進修,碩士學位,推廣教育,DBA,進修課程,碩士學位,網路廣告,關鍵字廣告,關鍵字,廣告,課程介紹,學分班,文憑,牛樟芝,段木,牛樟菇,日式料理, 台北居酒屋,燒肉,結婚,婚宴場地,推車飲茶,港式點心,尾牙春酒,台北住宿,國內訂房,台北HOTEL,台北婚宴,飯店優惠,台北結婚,婚宴場地,推車飲茶,港式點心,尾牙春酒,住宿,訂房,HOTEL,飯店,造型系列,學位,牛樟芝,腦磷脂,磷脂絲胺酸,SEO,婚宴,捷運,學區,美髮,儀器,髮型,牛樟芝,腦磷脂,磷脂絲胺酸,看房子,買房子,建商自售,自售,房子,捷運,學區,台北新成屋,台北豪宅,新成屋,豪宅,學位,碩士學位,進修,在職進修, 課程,教育,學位,證照,mba,文憑,學分班,網路廣告,關鍵字廣告,關鍵字,SEO,关键词,网络广告,关键词广告,SEO,关键词,网络广告,关键词广告,SEO,台北住宿,國內訂房,台北HOTEL,台北婚宴,飯店優惠,住宿,訂房,HOTEL,飯店,婚宴,台北住宿,國內訂房,台北HOTEL,台北婚宴,飯店優惠,住宿,訂房,HOTEL,飯店,婚宴,台北住宿,國內訂房,台北HOTEL,台北婚宴,飯店優惠,住宿,訂房,HOTEL,飯店,婚宴,結婚,婚宴場地,推車飲茶,港式點心,尾牙春酒,台北結婚,婚宴場地,推車飲茶,港式點心,尾牙春酒,結婚,婚宴場地,推車飲茶,港式點心,尾牙春酒,台北結婚,婚宴場地,推車飲茶,港式點心,尾牙春酒,結婚,婚宴場地,推車飲茶,港式點心,尾牙春酒,台北結婚,婚宴場地,推車飲茶,港式點心,尾牙春酒,居酒屋,燒烤,美髮,儀器,髮型,美髮,儀器,髮型,美髮,儀器,髮型,美髮,儀器,髮型,小套房,小套房,進修,在職進修,留學,證照,MBA,EMBA,留學,MBA,EMBA,留學,進修,在職進修,牛樟芝,段木,牛樟菇,住宿,民宿,飯宿,旅遊,住宿,民宿,飯宿,旅遊,住宿,民宿,飯宿,旅遊,住宿,民宿,飯宿,旅遊,住宿,民宿,飯宿,旅遊,住宿,民宿,飯宿,旅遊,住宿,民宿,飯宿,旅遊,美容,美髮,整形,造型,美容,美髮,整形,造型,美容,美髮,整形,造型,美容,美髮,整形,造型,美容,美髮,整形,造型,美容,美髮,整形,造型,美容,美髮,整形,造型,設計,室內設計,裝潢,房地產,設計,室內設計,裝潢,房地產,設計,室內設計,裝潢,房地產,設計,室內設計,裝潢,房地產,設計,室內設計,裝潢,房地產,設計,室內設計,裝潢,房地產,設計,室內設計,裝潢,房地產,設計,室內設計,裝潢,房地產,進修,在職進修,MBA,EMBA,進修,在職進修,MBA,EMBA,進修,在職進修,MBA,EMBA,進修,在職進修,MBA,EMBA,進修,在職進修,MBA,EMBA,進修,在職進修,MBA,EMBA,進修,在職進修,MBA,EMBA,住宿,民宿,飯店,旅遊,美容,美髮,整形,造型,設計,室內設計,裝潢,房地產,進修,在職進修,MBA,EMBA,關鍵字排名,網路行銷,关键词排名,网络营销,網路行銷,關鍵字排名,关键词排名,网络营销,羅志祥,周杰倫,五月天,蔡依林,林志玲,羅志祥,周杰倫,五月天,蔡依林,林志玲,PMP,在職專班,研究所在職專班,碩士在職專班,PMP,證照,在職專班,研究所在職專班,碩士在職專班,網頁設計,網站設計,網頁設計,網站設計,网页设计,网站设计,网站设计,网页设计
It would be nice to get Obama's honest opinion on the proofs against geological time scale evolutionism.
Sure the ancient (wo)man saw them:
http://www.helsinki.fi/~pjojala/Dinoglyphs.htm
They are documented not only in the classic books from the antiquities, but also as drawings, mosaics, bronze seals, cave paintings and even in garments from South America.
Pauli Ojala
biochemist
Helsinki, Fine land
酒店經紀人,
菲梵酒店經紀,
酒店經紀,
禮服酒店上班,
酒店小姐兼職,
便服酒店經紀,
酒店打工經紀,
制服酒店工作,
專業酒店經紀,
合法酒店經紀,
酒店暑假打工,
酒店寒假打工,
酒店經紀人,
菲梵酒店經紀,
酒店經紀,
禮服酒店上班,
酒店經紀人,
菲梵酒店經紀,
酒店經紀,
禮服酒店上班,
酒店小姐兼職,
便服酒店工作,
酒店打工經紀,
制服酒店經紀,
專業酒店經紀,
合法酒店經紀,
酒店暑假打工,
酒店寒假打工,
酒店經紀人,
菲梵酒店經紀,
酒店經紀,
禮服酒店上班,
酒店小姐兼職,
便服酒店工作,
酒店打工經紀,
制服酒店經紀,
酒店經紀,
菲
梵,
The survey found that consumer 3G wholesale china from the crowd of view, the buyer 25 to 40 years old mainly white-collar workers, accounting for about 40%, followed by consumer groups of students, accounting for about three into. According to statistics, 3G wholesale products in sales, compared with a 2G mobile phone sales are still a wide gap between, but since June has been, 3G mobile phones increase in the average monthly buy products for more than 50%, "11" period due to holiday business, the increase of more than 150%. Pk that the "11" after the peak sales of 3G handsets likely to usher in more stable growth.
From cell phones users to see the specific situation of occupational segmentation in 2009, accounting for 19.5% of students dropped 21.2 percent over last year, other types of occupations than those last year, the proportion of Internet users cheap cell phones increase. White collar crowd from last year's 29.2% increase to 38.9% this year, accounting for 9.7 percentage points up to replace the student groups cellphone users as one of the biggest occupational hierarchy; blue-collar crowd from last year's 13.9% to 18.9% this year, accounting for rose by 5.0 percentage points, showing that mobile phones users by a group of students to the occupational groups a significant trend in the development. Ereli advice that, cheap cell phones and mobile phone users Internet users monthly income distribution of age, education, occupational distribution has strong correlation with high spending capacity of white-collar workers and some students in the crowd will be a huge cell phone china online potential consumer groups.
By comparing the traditional Internet users, Internet users to iResearch found that the traditional white-collar-based, cell phones wholesale, corporate general staff accounted for 18.9%, higher than the 5.6% of the wholesale cell phones users accounting; and discount cell phones users in the years students and blue-collar workers accounted for significantly more than the traditional Internet users, respectively, accounting for 19.5% and 18.9%, higher than the traditional Internet users Students and blue-collar workers accounted for 7.8% and 5.1% respectively.
Post a Comment